Re: [foxboro] Statically linking C programs
- From: "William C Ricker" <wcricker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:06:31 -0400
Funny you should mention ....
Right here at our shop we have been having the same discussion this
past week.
Our main AW machine used to have a gcc/g++ version that was
version 2.9something. We recently upgraded it to 3.4something and
much to our chagrin we found that same library distribution problem.
The older gcc/g++ didn't usually need libraries to be distributed with
the executables it made.
We are now looking at going back to an earlier gcc/g++. Unfortunately, the
only ones that seem to be available on the net all are new enough to have
this library problem. That includes the 2.95.3 we downloaded last week.
So its back to the CD library to find the right one.
As for static linking, well, this is Solaris. Static linking gcc/g++
stuff on Solaris 2.5.1 is apparently a bit of a bear. There are a couple
of decent discussions of this on the web and they seem to agree that its
a lot of work without a sure success. For my money, it doesn't seem to be
worth the effort. Either we will get an older compiler loaded, or we will
start including libraries with out software distribution sets.
Maybe, Mr. Johnson, you would like a copy when I find it? It is all GNU
licensed stuff so redistribution is quite acceptable.
Regards,
William C Ricker
FeedForward, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of David Johnson
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:47 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] Statically linking C programs
Hello again,
While I'm picking the brains of the worlds foremost I/A experts (blatant
flattery).
I have been assisting in the development of a C program that allows the
setting of secure setpoints and a few other neat tricks. We used the gnu c
compiler, and have a version that works really well, but when we send the
executable out, some people don't have all of the gcc libraries. Rather
than make them load the gcc libs, which is a possible solution. We would
like to statically link the libraries. Yeah, I know it makes for a large
executable, but it's a lot easier to distribute. We have surfed the net and
tried a variety of "solutions" to no avail. So if you are a C guru with a
couple of minutes to spend, we could use the help.
Regards,
David
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
